Cracks in the Democratic Coalition

After John McCain’s defeat, even amateur political analysts could see a trend ultimately fatal to the Republican Party.

Ninety percent of McCain voters were white, and 90 percent Christian. But Christians have fallen to 75 percent of the population and are sinking, and white Americans have fallen to 66 percent of the population and are headed for minority status by mid-century.

The handwriting is on the wall. Soon, even GOP sweeps of two-thirds of the white vote that Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan managed will not be enough to capture the presidency. And as the GOP base contracts, the Democratic coalition — due to mass Third World immigration, anchor babies and higher birth rates — steadily expands.

Yet within the Barack Obama coalition — over 60 percent of Asian-Americans, 68 percent of Hispanics, 78 percent of Jews, 95 percent of blacks — fissures and fractures have become visible, not only along racial and ethnic lines, but along issue and ideological lines.

“The high-profile Florida Senate race” between Gov. Charlie Crist and Tea Party favorite Marco Rubio, writes The Washington Post, “has evolved into a battle that is tearing apart Democrats.”
How so? Florida Democrats nominated Kendrick Meek, the only African-American with a shot of sitting in the U.S. Senate in 2011. While Meek’s chances remain slim, Al Gore has gone in for him, and Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are coming, in the name of party solidarity.

However, Meek’s former House colleague, Robert Wexler, who represented Palm Beach County while Meek represented Broward, has “all but ordered the state’s many Jewish voters to back Crist.”

Should Meek lose because Jewish Democrats, on Wexler’s orders, cut him dead for Charlie Crist, black bitterness at this betrayal of their only hope for a U.S. senator will be off the charts.

What is Wexler thinking?

Black-Jewish tensions inside the Democratic coalition have also arisen in recent years, as Jewish contributors have poured money into races to defeat black members of Congress seen as hostile to Israel.

Two smaller minorities, Muslim- and Arab-Americans, also vote Democratic, are growing rapidly in numbers and, like many African-Americans, take the side of the Palestinians as an oppressed Third World people of color.

Yet this is by no means the only fracture.

Proposition 8, the California referendum to outlaw same-sex marriage, won the support of a majority of Hispanics and 70 percent of African-Americans. Black preachers implored their congregations to march to the polls and vote down the abomination of homosexual marriage, which gays, lesbians and liberals regard as the great civil-rights cause of our era.

On social issues like abortion, Hispanics and blacks, two of the most churched peoples in America and the most deeply religious in the Democratic coalition, regularly vote against white liberals.

Yet African-Americans at 40 million and Hispanics at 50 million, now living side-by-side in the cities, also clash over spoils and turf. In New Orleans, black majority resentment at Mexican workers coming in and taking the jobs rebuilding the city spilled out into public acrimony.

In California, Hispanic and black gangs are engaged in what one sheriff calls “a civil war of the underclass.” In U.S. prisons, black-white violence now takes a back seat to black-Hispanic violence.

On referenda to cut off social services and keep illegal aliens from getting driver’s licenses, blacks vote solidly conservative. And, understandably for black Americans, as they have been displaced as the nation’s largest minority and now have rivals for diminishing social welfare benefits and the fruits of affirmative action.

On racial and ethnic preferences in hiring, promotions and school admissions, Asians are classified with whites and are increasingly the victims of reverse discrimination. Asian-Americans’ interest in equal justice under law and no discrimination against their children must eventually drive them, especially Japanese-, Chinese- and Korean-Americans, out of Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition.

Where disparate Democrats still find common ground is on growing the government and redistributing the wealth from the private to the public sector, from those who have to those who have not.

When the pie is expanding, everyone can have a larger slice. The crisis of the Party of Government, however, is that we have entered an era where most Americans distrust government and many detest government. Second, with the national debt surging to 100 percent of gross domestic product and a third consecutive deficit running at 10 percent of GDP, we are entering a time of austerity, a time of shared sacrifice.

Now, it is not who gets what, but who gets cut.

When black District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty picked Korean-American Michelle Rhee to shape up D.C. schools, and she fired scores of black teachers as incompetent, Fenty was soon history. The black wards east of the Anacostia River voted against Fenty six to one.

Bravo, Pat! Your assessment portends not just for the future, but has actually arrived (perhaps two years ago)! What a shame that much of this “division” stems from the accomodation of tens of millions of illegal-immigrants, and by extension the antiquated and abused “anchor-baby” ammendment. That both parties have facilitated such, as was the bipartisan financial gifting (aka “bailout”), along with the now expansion of the bogus wars, confirms that a “divisive” and fractured America is something the pernicious pols are ok with.

This is the best news I’ve read in ages ! If the depression continues as it will if Obama continues the Hoover-FDR New Deal policies the illegal immigration will stop and start to reverse as it has already to some extent.
African-Americans’ lifestyle eating habits are also doing them in at much quicker the normal death rate for whites, not to mention AIDS and crime. Now black women are having abortions in greater numbers than whites. If it wasn’t for that
stupid Hyde Amendment this would have happened decades ago. Blacks who move out of the ghetto lumpen status also shed the idea of having so many kids. If they make enough
money they may also shed their Demo voting habits too.
There’s too much gloom and doom in rightist ranks which is very psychologically demoralizing.
It’s okay to bring us good news too, Pat. Thanks.

• A DAY IN THE LIFE OF A TEABAGGER• The Teabagger gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised. All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now The Teabagger gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. The Teabagger’s bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry. The Teabagger takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. The Teabagger dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree- hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. The Teabagger begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards The Teabagger’s employer pays these standards because The Teabagger’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union. If The Teabagger is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn’t think he should loose his home because of his temporary misfortune. It’s noon time, The Teabagger needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. The Teabagger’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect The Teabagger’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression. The Teabagger has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that The Teabagger and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. The Teabagger is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dad’s; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans. The house didn’t have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republicans would still be sitting in the dark) He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so The Teabagger wouldn’t have to. After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home. He turns on a radio talk show, the host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good (He doesn’t tell The Teabagger that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit The Teabagger enjoys throughout his day). The Teabagger agrees, “We don’t need those big government liberals ruining our lives.

I wish one day, that people would provide me with your email address, so that fly by night jackasses like yourself, could face the consequences of what they post here.

Perhaps you could tell me what a Teabagger is? Are they nothing more than the slang butt of jokes, for people who are so quick to insult there political opponents rather than debate them on the issues? Or perhaps they are taxpayers who now have to pay for all the crap that some ‘liberal’ made a law.

I would like you to cite specifically the following, “some liberal fought to insure their safety”, with a specific example of some liberal, who did so. As I recall almost all your specific examples are things that were passed by and created by that great Liberal Politician Richard Nixon.

I ask them because frankly I dont believe you. I think your a liar and a coward. I also think you dont know what your talking about as usual.

You mention social security and union pensions that the ‘Teabagger’ doesnt have to pay for? Other than you mean those consficatory wage payments he has to pay called social security contributions? A fund managed by the government but so full of IOU’s its slated to go broke in a decade?

Or do you mean the pension funds that have such a great big defict, like General Motors pension, that requires the taxpayers to bail them out? Oh Im sure the ‘teabagger’ isnt paying for that? Oh wait the taxpayer is paying for all that. Just like all those cities and states that are now going broke to pay for the pensions of there workers.

Really when have the Republicans fought against every protection and benefit? Please three specific examples.

The FSLIC was abolished in 1989! It isnt protecting crap anymore.

“The Teabagger has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that The Teabagger and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.”

You mean all those student friends of mine who now owe tens of thousands of dollars on debts they can never pay back?

Or how the Mortgage giants you mention specifically are being blamed as the number one cause of the Recession that were all now facing?

I could go on, but basically you have already proven to me your so stupid and ignorant by not knowing how to do simple internet searches to prove how stupid your facts are.

The liberal coalition really is breaking up and its time for conservative Republicans to win the over with the the one thing all Americans agree must be defeated; terrorism! If Republicans can unite the nation against Americas enemies by advocating a robust conservative foreign policy then they will win in November. Republicans should run on our record of success in the middle east and by reminding voters of our great liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Republicans should remind voters of democrats cut and run record and their weakness against Iran. If Republicans are to be successful they must run on a real conservative foreign policy!

The LAST thing we need is more disastrous NEOCON foreign policy which is what sunk both Bushes and totally defeated Reagan’s tax cuts and any ideas for smaller government.
We have a record of TOTAL failure in the Middle East, in Palestine/Israel, Iraq, Iran and now Afghanistan. The voters do not want a repeat of the Iraq disaster but twenty times worse as it would be in Iran. If the Demos can prove the Cheney lunatics are in charge of the GOP they will retain Congress in November and should if GOP stupid war is the alternative.
The USA and Israel are the leading terrorist states today so if we accept Kyle’s crazed premise we need to bomb Tel Aviv and DC pronto.

Kyle,
Re. Republicans should run on our record of success in the middle east and by reminding voters of our great liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

With the Mid-East more turbulent than ever (and no peace accord in Israel-Palestine), not to mention the Trillion-dollar war in Iraq-Afgan that has devastated the US economy, brother Kyle you need to get away from that Hookah — it clouds your reasoning…

I agree Kyle K. The War on Terrorism is the issue of our day and Americans overwhelmingly support it. If us real pro-American Reaganite conservative Republicans run on an aggresive foreign policy platform of defeating terrorism through preemptive war and liberating the world from terror there will be no stopping us in 2010 and beyond.

Weakness against Iran Kyle wtf were you for 8 Bush years? Iran didn’t just fall out of the sky. Lastly loons Reagan was against foreign entanglements. Fat chance he’d invade Iran Iraq or Afghanistan (and stay). Saying Reagans name isn’t a magic spell for neocons. Your just demonstrating that you were not even alive when he was in.
Actually most of what Johnny America said is true but I wouldn’t boast about Freddie May etc. That seems to have been a champion fkup. Government intervention doesn’t always work (see Iraq) but can do see auto manufacturers bailout. Be honest it was the only thing to do and it’s worked.

A month from now, the Republican Party’s long march to homogeneity, or to coherence if that is what you prefer to call it, will have advanced by several more miles. In fact, given the nominations, that advance has already happened, regardless of whether or not those nominated are elected.

There is nothing coherent about trying to combine neoliberal economics, social conservatism and foreign policy hawkishness, but that is not the present point, which is this: since when were major American parties supposed to be homogeneous, supposed to be coherent in that sense? The thrashing out of differences within the very broad coalition that is either such party was always supposed to be as much a de facto constitutional check and balance as the role of each such party in checking and balancing the other.

There have always been, and there will and must always be, Republicans who could only conceivably be Republicans and Democrats who could only conceivably be Democrats. A certain partisan spirit is vital to maintaining accountability. But the probably obvious nominee of an effectively sectarian party stands no chance of winning the Presidency of the United States against the ultimately, even painfully, agreed nominee of a grand coalition. The Democrats have their own very real and present dangers here, but the Republican situation is far, far worse.

Take, for example, the House of Representatives. At their best, the Democratic leaders there must seek to accommodate and to reflect the Blue Dog Coalition, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the New Democrat Coalition, and the Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition, taking into account those who belong to more than one of these and those who belong to none. Within and under that, they must seek to accommodate and to reflect the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and the huge number who do not and cannot belong to any of those three. Not necessarily an enviable task. But a nobler one than doing nothing more than give the Tea Party whatever it is that it wants while nursing those whom it has merely not yet succeeded in supplanting. Nobler, and in the long run infinitely more politic.

All that is missing from the Democratic Party at national level or with a national profile, such as Governors, or the Mayors of the largest cities, is any significant presence of economically left-wing social conservatives who oppose the war agenda and its attendant assaults on constitutional liberty; who see, for example, the connection between the exportation of jobs to sweatshops and the importation of those sweatshops themselves. Causes that are, as much as anything else, very dear indeed to the hearts of black America. Good luck to Reverend James T. Meeks in his quest to become Mayor of Chicago.

As for what the Tea Party wants, the obvious tension is between foreign policy hawkishness, with its vast opportunities for the lifelong employment of soi disant conservatives by the military-industrial complex (complete, in many cases, with lavish healthcare and other benefits in retirement at the general taxpayer’s expense), and a definition of effectively all taxation and government spending as inherent immoral and oppressive. But there is also the fact that opposition to any action at federal level in the pro-life cause, or to uphold the traditional definition of marriage, places one in functionally the same position as the most socially liberal of all socially liberal Democrats.

For that as for a number of other related reasons, the most pro-life and pro-family voter in, say, Kentucky, can and should vote with an entirely clear conscience for the candidate in favor of the pro-life and pro-family government action necessary to save that state’s coal industry, and against the anti-life and anti-family legalization of cannabis, rather than for the candidate opposed to that action and in favor of that legalization. Unlike his father, Rand Paul is also in favor of things like NAFTA, and, as reported here, has already had meetings with several of the most prominent neoconservative ideologues.

There are 1000+ channels available on satellite TV, dozens of chain restaurants, more think tanks, fraternal organizations and special interest groups than you can count. Why then are there only 2 major political parties, each housing a coalition of disparate groups? And each establishment party though they purport to represent their constituents is really just a tool of the special interests who finance them.

Why shouldn’t blacks, Hispanics, Jews, vegetarians, etc., have their own party and be represented in a congress of 1500+ representatives or 1 for every 200,000 citizens? And why shouldn’t the presidency be separated into 2 offices: a neutral head of state and a highly partisan head of government? And why shouldn’t the Senate be made into a neutral body to act as a check on a highly political House of Representatives and not to make law themselves? And why shouldn’t a government fall if its policies have failed and be replaced with another? And why should rulings of the Supreme Court have no check other than a constitutional amendment or another ruling of that same court? And why should the congress be allowed to set its own salary and benefits without the approval of the people, etc. etc.

The authors of the US constitution forsaw a time when the system of government that they had devised would become dysfunctional and inserted a provision for a new constitutional convention to be called by the states. I believe that the time has come.

“Nate Weinstein,” is set up as an anti-Jewish caricature.
Ignore him, he has the grossest warmongering idiocy imaginable.
David, you take a long time to get down to the nub of your statist agenda, more prosecution of the losing insane war on
drugs. See Thomas Szasz’s Our Right To Drugs. I’m
don’t doubt that marijuana is almost as bad for you as
the legal psychiatric drugs or tobacco or alcohol but the
whole purpose of a free society is to allow people to make
their own choices, most definitely including whether to bring
fetuses to term. Please do us all a favor and give us a full
list of your favored so we can know whom to vote against.
“Kyle” may be the other half of “Nate.” Sort of like two bad sides in one.

Your a wackjob and a real piece of work. You deny the holocaust, constantly site 3rd rate libertarian intellectuals (sic) and want minorities to have abortions! I dunno where your inspiration for the crap you expose comes from but its totally wrong and misinformed and hateful. People like you who masquearade as conservatives give real conservatives a bad name.

Nate, I’m not a” reaganite”, whatever that means. Reagan was good on growing the defense budget and slashing wasteful domestic programs while cutting taxes on the rich who create the jobs but he never actually used the military to defeat our enemies. Reagan was too scared to trust in our military to get things done and even gave aid and comfort to our enemies by pulling out of Lebanon before we accomplished our mission. For that reason and others please don’t call me a ‘reaganite’ Nate.

Kyle K, I agree that Reagan might not be the best on real conservative policy but he is an iconic president and was pretty good on those issues. I prefer the terms Kristolite, Frumite, Hannityite, or Cheneyite, but many people may not understand who those great Americans are. I use the term Reaganite because it can unite all of us conservatives together to support a conservative foreign policy of war in preemption. It is more important then ever in these times of Ron Paul propoganda trying to sell us that his foreign policy ideas are conservative, when they are in fact as far to the left as it gets.

Now, lets compare Ronald Reagan and Ron Paul for a second. Ron Paul voted to send our troops to fight in Afghanistan, like how the liberals sent our troops to fight in Iraq. He not only wants us out of Iraq like the liberals, but he wants us out of Afghanistan as well. That makes most of the liberal Democrats stronger on the War on Terrorism than he is. Even the far left Democrats won’t retreat from Afghanistan for God’s sake. Also, Ron Paul refuses to condemn Hamas. Yet, the liberal Ron Paul claims to be a conservative and a Republican.

Now let’s look at the words of the true statesman and hero of the republic and Constitution- Ronald Reagan. “And what more can we ask in our democracy? And yet after more than a decade of desperate boat people, after the killing fields of Cambodia, after all that has happened in that unhappy part of the world, who can doubt that the cause for which our men fought was just? It was, after all, however imperfectly pursued, the cause of freedom; and they showed uncommon courage in its service. Perhaps at this late date we can all agree that we’ve learned one lesson: that young Americans must never again be sent to fight and die unless we are prepared to let them win.”

That is right President Reagan, we must let them win. We cannot cut and run like Ron Paul and his pathetic weak little liberal anti-American surrender monkey followers want us to. It is the only way to keep America free and secure.

Seems to me Johnny A and David’s answer in comments both claim some truths. Some liberal programs were/are needed. Some are not and are wasteful beyond measure. As for the cracks in the Democratic party coalition the existing and pending cracks in the Republican party are I believe at least equally present so the Democratic party may still retain power and we’ll see what form it’ll take. Reminds me of Middle East politics where the Jews are often splintered into rival factions vehemently at odds with each other but still able to prevail because the Arabs are even more fractured.

“• A DAY IN THE LIFE OF A TEABAGGER• The Teabagger gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards.”

You mean the one the liberal Richard Nixon signed into law?

“He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised. All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now The Teabagger gets it too.”

I guess you think Carter created this when he renamed it in 1979, but actually this one was by Dwight D. Eisenhower. Since he didn’t really know which party he should be in I’ll give you half credit.

“He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. The Teabagger’s bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.”

Upton Sinclair novel the Jungle is what lead to the creation those laws.

“The Teabagger takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. The Teabagger dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree- hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air.”

I will give him half credit on that one. Note again who was in office when these laws were pasted: the Coastal Zone Management Act (1972), the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act (1972), the Endangered Species Act (1973), the Marine Mammal Protection Act (1972), the Deepwater Ports and Waterways Safety Act (1974), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1974)

“The Teabagger begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards The Teabagger’s employer pays these standards because The Teabagger’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union. If The Teabagger is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn’t think he should loose his home because of his temporary misfortune.”

Ok now I’m mad. Civil rights,holidays,the 40 hour work week etc. was due to the sacrifices of the Irish, Italian, Polish, German, and Chinese immigrant workers and specifically the coal miners starting with the Molly McGuire’s. IOW all those poor evil white Europeans many of us are descended from.

“It’s noon time, The Teabagger needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. The Teabagger’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect The Teabagger’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression. The Teabagger has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that The Teabagger and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.”

Yes well the concept of “insured” in the private sector means you have to have the funds on hand to pay off the obligation if it fails. However, the wonderful FDR and forward thinking Democrat’s didn’t believe that; they only needed a taxing authority in place to burden future generations when and if it defaulted. You didn’t actually think the term “gov’t backed” meant secured did you?

If you learn anything it’s this – increase taxes today to pay in the future what was owed in the past.

“The Teabagger is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dad’s; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards.”

Sorry didn’t you see my point above -President Richard M. Nixon signed the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.

“He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans. The house didn’t have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republicans would still be sitting in the dark) He is happy to see his dad who is now retired.”

I think you have a point.

“His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so The Teabagger wouldn’t have to.”

Ah, please refer back to the phrase “gov’t back” above. In case you missed it there is nothing but an IOU there and it means again

increase taxes in the present to pay for current and future obligations, because we spent it all securing Democrat vote in the past.

“After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home. He turns on a radio talk show, the host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good (He doesn’t tell The Teabagger that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit The Teabagger enjoys throughout his day). The Teabagger agrees, “We don’t need those big government liberals ruining our lives.”

Well hopefully he has seen that its not just the liberal Democrat’s that are the problem, its the RINO’s of the past 60 years as well.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)

The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.

The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.

No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.

To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.

I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. (Back then!)

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.

Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.

The god who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.

In matters of style, swim with the current;
In matters of principle, stand like a rock.

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all.

The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.

When wrongs are pressed because it is believed they will be borne, resistance becomes morality.

Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty…. And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.

It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings, collected together, are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately.

Liberty is the great parent of science and of virtue; and a nation will be great in both in proportion as it is free.

He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

I have sworn on the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

I have never been able to conceive how any rational being could propose happiness to himself from the exercise of power over others.

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

In a government bottomed on the will of all, the…liberty of every individual citizen becomes interesting to all.

I’m a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

Most bad government has grown out of too much government.

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.

A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.